The plodding pace of change

Expectations of the police service have changed so markedly that the clash between the policing past and present forms the basis of winning TV drama. By plunging modern cop DCI Sam Tyler back into the 1970s, Life on Mars picked up large audiences. The 1980s follow up, Ashes to Ashes, began on BBC1 last night. Yesterday's long-awaited report by Sir Ronnie Flanagan spelled out things that have changed since. Child protection, race relations and the community supervision of offenders were not previously thought of as police matters. But the whirlwind of reform has never blown through police stations in the same way as it did through schools and hospitals. One of the few big ideas to be attempted - merging forces - was ditched in 2006.

Although now charged with inspecting the constabulary, Sir Ronnie spent most of his career as a member of the force. His report does not make exciting reading, but he at least resisted any temptation to tell his former colleagues only what they wanted to hear. Setting aside the current pay dispute, the biggest cause of grumbling in the canteen is red tape. An energetic campaign by the Conservatives has made the "stop and account" form the totem of bureaucracy. Officers understandably resent having to spend seven minutes on form-filling every time they stop someone. But the system was introduced to keep a check on unfair harassment of minority groups. In calling for it be to scrapped, David Cameron has been too quick to dismiss police racism as a 20th-century problem. Sir Ronnie sensibly proposes a new system. Every time an officer stops someone, he says, they should hand over their details on a card. That would mean they could not stop people anonymously. Officers would also have to register the details using mobile technology.

The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, endorsed this scheme yesterday, the centrepiece of her low-key response. Worthwhile as the change might be, it is doubtful she will be able to deliver a much deeper dent in the police's pile of paperwork. The police are servants of the courts, and in Britain's adversarial system the defence can always fall back on demanding to see the paperwork. So canny coppers will feel obliged to spend time doing it properly, whatever ministers do.

Ms Smith did not give equal attention to Sir Ronnie's more radical arguments. The most striking was his frank admission that the current number of officers was unsustainable. Their ranks have been swelled by competing bids between political parties, in a debate that took little account of need, and none at all of efficiency. At one point Labour's pledge to be tough on crime and the causes of crime got reduced to the crude rallying cry: "more police". The necessary shift towards neighbourhood policing - with named local officers whose priorities are set by their community - will be harder because 80% of the budget is tied up paying salaries of existing officers.

Yesterday's report nudges the argument away from quantity, and towards quality instead. It suggests freeing police from the many tasks that non-uniformed officers could do - the recording of witness statements being just one example. The workforce reforms mooted by Sir Ronnie could drive up standards further by challenging the lazy assumption that policing has to be a career for life. Opening up careers to outside professionals would achieve this, as would more portable pensions. A shift from service to performance-related pay would be more controversial, but in its coming green paper the government should consider it.

The last time the task of the police was considered in the round was by a 1960 royal commission. That is long before even Life on Mars. The country has changed beyond recognition since. The plodding speed of police reforms must be stepped up to a march.